Advertisements

Presidential Politics on Uncommon Descent

Many of you are wondering why the UD adminstration decided to take an aggressive stand promoting the McCain/Palin presidential ticket.

There are two reasons.

The first is that both Senator McCain and Governor Palin are on record supporting “teach the controversy”. Senator Obama is on the record against it. Our goal is not to vanquish the Darwinian narrative by legal chicanery. That’s a tactic our opponents employ. Our goal is to let young people in public schools hear both sides of the argument in a religiously neutral manner and thus stop the early indoctrination into the Darwinian narrative by presenting it in a vacuum devoid of criticism or alternative hypotheses.

The second reason is that our opponents in the academic halls of science are working very hard to promote the candidate sympathetic with their views and denigrate those who are not. We’ve simply decided that in this case our best interest lies in engaging the Darwinian science lobby under the rules of engagement they themselves have established.

What about his piss-poor absolute retardation for an idea that we should tax oil companies to “punish” them for what he calls “windfall profits,” when he has never defined that term, and when oil companies only make a 10% profit margin, not to mention the fact that the government makes nearly 65 billion off of Exxon’s oil in taxes; 20 billion more then the net profit of Exxon. Yes folks, if anyone makes a “windfall” then it’s the government, and that “windfall” would increase if Obama set up his tax plan:

A good reason to vote McCain, but aren’t you in danger of playing into the hands of those who say that ID is just another front of the Christian / Republican right? I would suspect that the majority of this site’s readership were always going to be voting for McCain. Aligning this site with McCain only serves to exclude the curious minority who come here to find out what ID is all about, only to see political endorsements, and every other stereotype of the political right alive and well (anti-global warming etc).

I see nothing wrong with promoting a candidate who will support a view that is an entire website’s raison d’etre.

I am certain that at the Darwinian sites, there are Obama ads as well, and as far as I know, this site is not listed as a 501-3c tax exempt entity, nor a religious entity, so the site is certainly free to promote who/whatever it wishes.

Aligning this site with McCain only serves to exclude the curious minority who come here to find out what ID is all about

I agree Rowan. This site should be about science, not politics. The majority of people vote for the candidate best able to express their worldview. The rest vote by appearances, charisma, or whimsy. Probably very few vote based upon what is read on a website.

And who are these people running for office? They are all wealthy. Most of them are lawyers. The “common man” junk they spout is pure bovine fecal matter coated in powdered sugar against a backdrop of candy canes, bon-bons, and rainbows for maximum distraction and allure.

This is why a church should never promote a particular political candidate: someone seeking God will feel excluded, will go away and look elsewhere else or give up. Or they’ll think it’s a shell game of shuffling and scamming for money, posturing for recognition which is what politicians do.

If your mind is right in the first place you will know the correct side of the fence to be on concerning morality, economics, and so forth.

It is like the issue of abortion: a sinful, foolish. immoral woman thinks it is just fine to dispose of her (inconvenient) child. You cure such thinking not by banning abortion (she is going to do it regardless) but by preaching to her Christ crucified. Should she respond, the spiritual darkness she walks in will be replaced by light. Her eyes will be opened by the Holy Spirit concerning right & wrong. She won’t have to go to any website to figure out where to cast her vote.

I like the pro-Palin material and I think McCain is a far better candidate than Obama.
I think Obama’s positions should be exposed and that he should be shown for what he is.
But I don’t think that should be done here.

These are obviously personal opinions, however. I am on the other side when it comes to other non-science issues being discussed here (Darwin and eugenics, for example).

For what it may count, I don’t like very much when discussions here become too political, and certainly a strong committment of the blog in a presidential campaign is definitely political.

I really respect the decisions of those who manage the blog, but I am convinced that ID can have a strong appeal on any kind of people, and so there is no reason to discourage those who have different political opinions, or religious opinions, or moral opinions, and so on. ID is a very strong scientific and cognitive advancement for human culture, and as such it cannot be monopolized by any political or religious or philosophical group. It is scientific truth, and it is for all who are open enough to understand it and embrace it.

But this is a blog, and a blog is made of people, and so again I respect the freedom of choice of those who have the responsibility to manage it, even when I don’t agree.

“It is like the issue of abortion: a sinful, foolish. immoral woman thinks it is just fine to dispose of her (inconvenient) child. You cure such thinking not by banning abortion (she is going to do it regardless) but by preaching to her Christ crucified.”

Piffle.

Let’s substitute a couple of words and see how the argument stands up.

“It is like the issue of murder: a sinful, foolish. immoral man thinks it is just fine to kill his business partner who caught him embezzling from the company. You cure such thinking not by banning murder (he is going to do it regardless) but by preaching to him Christ crucified.”

But Barry, everyone knows “you can’t legislate morality.”

Double piffle. File that little canard with all the other things that “everyone knows” that are in fact not true.

Not only can we legislate morality, but we can indeed legislate little else. Think of a criminal law that is not based on morality.

Murder: Nope, thou shalt not kill

Theft: Nope, thou shalt not steal

Rape: Nope, do unto others as you would have them do unto you

I could go on and on.

The fact of the matter is that morality is primary; law is derivative. At its core law is nothing more than the expression of a society’s collective morality.

But you know what I mean; you can’t make someone moral by passing a law.

So?

Here I will let Martin Luther King speak: “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”

Yes, we should preach Christ crucified. I am not denying that. But if I hear one more person say “you can’t legislate morality” I am not sure I will be able to control my gag reflex.

So, for the sake of logic, for the sake of common sense, for the sake of the rug on my floor, enough with that trope.

Presidential politics, the culture war, and the debate over intelligent are not isolated issues. The Obama/Biden ticket supports the culture of death and promotes Darwinism. The McCain/Palin ticket supports the sacredness of life and promotes intelligent design. Does anyone notice a pattern here?

Biden:“I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!” Although, I have no idea what Biden thinks ID is (i.e., does he think it’s the same as YECism or special creationism in general) For what it’s worth, President Bush said:“Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about,” […]”Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.” His position/support for ID/”teach the controversy” didn’t seem to amount to anything, so I can’t see how Biden’s opinion (however ill-informed it may be) will have any affect on the debate either.

Rowan:

Aligning this site with McCain only serves to exclude the curious minority who come here to find out what ID is all about, only to see political endorsements, and every other stereotype of the political right alive and well (anti-global warming etc).

Exactly.

acorbit:

As a ID supporter who has liberal leanings I find the increasing conservative, right-wing tone of this blog a bit disturbing.

It is often argued that ID transcends religion. It is said that even some atheists support ID. My question is, does ID transcend politics? Can I vote for Obama and still support ID?

Atom:

This isn’t my blog, so I can’t tell Bill and DS what to do. Maybe this blog wants to court only Republicans for ID…that is their freedom.

I just know that it excludes a lot of people, making the tent a lot smaller.

For what it’s worth, from a mostly lurker here, I agree 100%. Based on the comments so far it hardly seems like the majority of readers support this new policy of pro-McCain/GoP content. Although, I’ve the impression that the majority of bloggers here (i.e., not readers, commentators) do support it. Ultimately, it’s their blog and they can do what they wish but, imho, it’s irresponsible, unnecessary and ultimately divisive. There’s plenty of places on the WWW to go for this stuff, alienating liberals/democrats and those McCain supporters whom may not agree with the type and tenor or what flies as political commentary around here is unwise.

My opinion, as a long time reader and supporter of ID… for what it’s worth.

Well said. But in fairness to Beancan5000, he didn’t say he would oppose voting against abortion or that he was against “legislating morality” (if defined broadly enough); he simply said that the legislation would not provide a lasting solution.

It is the same with me and gay marriage: I don’t think it is morally right, I will continue to vote for candidates that represent my views on it, but I don’t think that my voting will solve the problem even if gay marriage becomes temporarily outlawed. I know I can’t expect the lost to act like the redeemed and they’ll just oppose me on the next issue that comes up.

You do have a point that we should, with our power, oppose evil. But if we have limited time and resources, we are forced to choose what we focus our energy on. Beancan5000 chooses to focus on the Gospel itself, as the real transforming power.

This is aside from the whole point that ID is not right-wing Christianity disguised as science, or American Republicanism.

I really respect your input (you’re one of my favorite commenters), but I think you over-read what beancan5000 actually wrote. (or perhaps I under-read it…)

I concur with your assessment of legislating morality. This article elaborates upon it:Link here

Morality is about right and wrong, and that’s what laws put into legal form. Can you think of one law which doesn’t declare one behavior right and its opposite wrong? The truth is all laws legislate morality (even speed limits imply a moral right to life). And everyone in politics — conservatives, libertarians and liberals — is trying to legislate morality. The only question is: “Whose morality should be legislated?”

Being somewhat of a pessimist, I have about come to the conclusion legislating morality doesn’t seem to do much good so evangelism is the only solution but, had I carried my logic out further as you have done, I would have seen that without such legislation the world would be a nightmare to live in, if not unlivable.

I am all for the banning of abortion but my thoughts are “they are going to do it anyway” so what’s the use. However, the law will act as a deterrent in most cases so it is good to have a law.

What I meant my statement to mean is that the source of immoral thought and actions, that is, an unrepentant heart, can only be cured by salvation not law. The law will deter them but they are always simmering in the background waiting their chance to erupt like a wildfire upon humanity.

Sorry for opening the abortion can of worms…hey, Worms–Martin Luther, uh, nevermind.

—-“As a ID supporter who has liberal leanings I find the increasing conservative, right-wing tone of this blog a bit disturbing.

—-This is aside from the whole point that ID is not right-wing Christianity disguised as science, or American Republicanism.

It’s not about Christianity or right wing politics.

McCain, Palin, and ID all identify with the sacredness of life because they AFFIRM the deisgn of life; Obama, Biden, and Darwinism all identify with the culture of death because they DENY the design of life. The point is worth dramatizing. If Democrats are consistently pro-death and anti-design, maybe THEY are the ones who ought to pause and reflect.

Seeing as this is the topic du jour, some of you maybe interested in the Q and A that Nature sent to both candidates. Their responses, or lack thereof, are interesting. It looks like either way overall funding will increase, which is a good thing in my opinion (being a scientist, though in Canada so not a recipient).

beancan5000, with your comment in [19] we can put a lid on this one. We are in perfect agreement. Primacy should always go to preaching the gospel, for it hardly matters what a country’s laws are if its people are degenerate. That said, we must resist evil with all resources available to us, including by legislative means where appropriate.

If Democrats are consistently pro-death and anti-design, maybe THEY are the ones who ought to pause and reflect.

Get a grip. I’ve got lots of Obama supporting, Christian, moral friends, who care as much about life as you do. That’s like saying all Republicans are pro-death because they don’t support gun control laws.

At the end of the day, we all want to see ID get a fair hearing. We want to see the scientific mainstream wrestling with the scientific challenges of ID. So what’s going to make that happen? Is it going to be the endorsement of politicians like Bush and Palin who they have already dismissed as uninformed, religious fundamentalists. I really doubt it.

I think instead of demonizing one side of the polital spectrum, we need to be engaging with those who feel threatened by the ID camp’s apparent religious and political affiliations. Engaging only with the right, is pretty much preaching to the converted.

At the current time there are four conservative supreme court justices, four liberals, and one wild card who swings both ways.

At least one liberal Supreme Court justice is going to get replaced by the next president. Justice Stevens. He’s 88 years old. If a Republican names the replacement the Supreme court will have a conservative majority for the next 10 years. If a Democrat names the replacement the current split court remains intact.

Next in line by order of likelyhood is 75 year-old Ginsberg. She’s also a liberal. If her replacement is named by a Republican the USSC will be conservative for 20 years and by a 5:3 margin. Even tie breaker wild card Kennedy won’t be enough. If her replacement is named by a Democrat the current equal split remains intact.

This scares the baby killers into apoplexy. If McCain becomes president Roe v. Wade is a goner. Regulation of abortion will be a matter for individual states to decide again. I don’t have a particular problem with that. Mostly I have a problem with the federal government usurping the powers that are supposed to be reserved to the states and to the people.

This is my first and probably last post here. I’m strictly a lurker going back to what seems like years now, but I felt strongly, for the first time, that I had something to contribute to this blog. I do hope this will be allowed to be posted and apologize in advance for the length.

I am a convert. And if the aim of this blog is at least in part to win converts, then I think what I have to say should be reflected upon with the utmost of care and interest. How else would one know what works to convert unless one hears with open mind and heart from the converted?

I began my conversion, first from atheism to theism, with a simple question. Being fully indoctrinated from the earliest age in the anti-religious, Evolutionist, Darwinistic, and elitist majority of my community, I believed to my very core that all religious people were weak-minded idiots. Truly buffoons and morons. One day I posed to myself a question: Can it be true that all theists were complete idiots? During those years of my initial inquiry, I made a point to stop reading the propaganda I was accustomed to, and start reading the best works by the brightest minds from the opposition.

I was amazed to discover that the answer to my question was “No, not all theists were idiots. In fact, some of them have the brightest minds and most well reasoned arguments I’ve ever been exposed to.” It was then that I first realized that I had been brainwashed all those many years—that I had been indoctrinated into a falsehood of relativism and agnostic, atheism and materialism.

It was a tumultuous time. I hadn’t figured out any other answers yet. It left open then the questions of where did I come from, how did I get here, where am I going. It was scary, frankly, to have my foundations rocked so forcefully. I felt lost in the wilderness. My trust in my “sources”, those I had relied upon for my entire life, now shaken, caused me to question everyone and everything. I was lost.

But I suppose that was unavoidable. How else can one be found unless they first recognize they’re lost?

The next few years I sent out to find the answers to those questions above. I’m far from having all the answers but at least now I have a confidence that I’m on the right path. That provides some comfort.

How does this all relate to ID? Well, while on my path of discovery, I had another question. Can all those ID supporters really be complete idiots and is ID just a front for the whack job extreme religious right?

So, as I did with atheism, I did with ID. I set out to read the best stuff from the opposition. I read Behe’s works. I discovered this blog. Like atheism and theism, I discovered that the answer to my question was “No, not all ID supporters are idiots and their theory is not a front for the extremely right winged whack jobs, in fact, their theories were some of the most well reasoned and scientifically (statistically sound) theories I had ever been exposed to.” And like atheism, I had lost my trust in my public school science education. I had seen the flaws in the theories of Darwin. I don’t have the answers yet, but I feel like I’m on my way.

But one thing I know for certain, is that during my discovery, if I had found this blog to be, entry after entry, hardly anything more than political propagandizing, (the likes of which one finds on this blog today), instead of this blog being hard science and good philosophy, strong statistical analysis, and impartial empirical study, then instead of my favorable answer regarding my ID=idiots question posed above, my answer would have been “Yes, ID is nothing more than a front for the right-wing conservative Republicans”.

I’m glad I had the opportunity to have the veil over my eyes regarding ID lifted. Behe’s works and others, this blog included, helped with lifting that veil. But had I found this site to be so polarizing and political, instead of scientific and impartial, during my years of discovery, I doubt seriously I would have ever returned to find the “good stuff”, because I would not have had *trust* in this site as a source for the *science* of ID. Timing sometimes is everything. And if I had timed my discovery of this blog now, rather than earlier, you would not have gained a weekly visitor and engaged reader from me.

A $100,000 state grant for a botanic garden in Englewood that then-state Sen. Barack Obama awarded in 2001 to a group headed by a onetime campaign volunteer is now under investigation by the Illinois attorney general amid new questions, prompted by Chicago Sun-Times reports, about whether the money might have been misspent.

I get awfully sick of that canard too. What exactly is law but legislated morality?

But maybe the left knew this all along, that the only way to legislate its immorality was to miseducate and corrupt the public. We get the leaders we deserve, as they say.

Sometimes when I think of the Sixties I think of Balaam who, unable to curse Israel, sought to get Israel to sin so that the nation would have to be cursed by the Creator. It’s as though when the Allies couldn’t be defeated by the Axis powers, the powers of darkness decided to unleash the Sixties.

But there’s hope. Way back there the commoners may have had their heads on straight but their intellectual superiors had theirs on backwards. Today when huge swaths of the commoners have succumbed to the delusion of the materialists—pharmacological and otherwise—there is out there more bright minds creating the case for Purpose than before the Great Cultural Disaster set in.

And what’s this that we have to be politically neutral and just stick to the science? If we do that they win! Why? Because they have it rigged.

In these postmodernist times logic and argument don’t matter—language exists only as a political weapon—politics is all there is.

Often conservatives don’t know this and thus are flustered when trying to engage the Left.

But they’re right as far as Darwinism is concerned. It was never about science—it was all about throwing God out of our culture and government. They forget that when you throw God out you throw out the foundation for our freedoms. If it’s no surprise that ID folks tend to be less hostile to religion, it should be no surprise that it’s the materialists who legislate against counter arguments, push speech codes, and fawn over dictators.

ID’s Big Tent remains. Individuals—those who run this site just as anyone else—are free to support any cause they wish. We can take the science and run or stay and have some fun on the political side. But we all have to know that Darwin didn’t win in the science arena and he won’t be defeated there either. It begins there—we make our case there—but Darwin is protected by the cultural elite and he won’t fall until we defeat him there.

If Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution applies to anything, it applies to Darwinism. Darwinism was a political revolution to begin with—and so it will end.

—-“Get a grip. I’ve got lots of Obama supporting, Christian, moral friends, who care as much about life as you do. That’s like saying all Republicans are pro-death because they don’t support gun control laws.”

Some acts are inherrently evil; others are conditionally evil, meaning that their rightness or wrongness depends on the situation. To execute a recently born baby is wrong in all circumstances, in all times, and in all places. From a pro-life perspective, it is a non-negotiable point; there is no room for debate about it The ethics of gun-control laws is debatable because there are advantages and disadvantages to having them. The two issues are not on the same moral plane at all.

A vote for Obama is a vote for infanticide. Those who support him cannot possibly care as much about life as I do, since it is evident that they have other priorities. But such priorities are misplaced because the right to life is the foundation for all other rights. You can’t enjoy your other rights if you aren’t alive.

Let me preface everything I say with – I am strongly opposed to abortion and even used to run an online group of pro-life artists.

A vote for Obama is a vote for infanticide. Those who support him cannot possibly care as much about life as I do

StephenB – it’s possible that you’re a better person that all my friends and you care about life more than they all do. Perhaps you’ve adopted 10 children and spend your days supporting struggling single mothers.

But based on what you’ve written here, I’d say your interest in the abortion issue lies mostly in your need to feel morally superior to other people.

To execute a recently born baby is wrong in all circumstances

Abortion is not the same as infanticide. Abortion is not always completely black and white. What if the mother will die if the pregnancy continues?

—–Rowan: “Let me preface everything I say with – I am strongly opposed to abortion and even used to run an online group of pro-life artists.”

How can you be “strongly opposed” to abortion and defend the candidacy of Barack Obama, who supports both abortion and infanticide. Help me connect the dots.

A vote for Obama is a vote for infanticide. Those who support him cannot possibly care as much about life as I do

—–“StephenB – it’s possible that you’re a better person that all my friends and you care about life more than they all do. Perhaps you’ve adopted 10 children and spend your days supporting struggling single mothers.”

I didn’t say that I was a better person than all your friends, but I suspect that I subscribe to a better ethic since their ethic allows them to vote for a pro-abortion, pro-infanticide politician.

—–“But based on what you’ve written here, I’d say your interest in the abortion issue lies mostly in your need to feel morally superior to other people.”

No, believe it or not, it stems from my desire to protect babies from bloodthirsty opportunists who will do anything to gain power.

—–“Abortion is not the same as infanticide. Abortion is not always completely black and white. What if the mother will die if the pregnancy continues?”

I am aware of the distinction, thanks anyway. No one can know in advance whether a mother will die because of an abortion. There is no justification for killing a life on the chance that you may or may not save a life. In any case, you have not yet explained why you can live with the 99.99…% of abortions in which the mother’s health is not in jeopardy.

Some things are non-negotiable.

—–“Now you sound like a Darwinist.”

I gather your reasoning goes something like this: Inasmuch as Darwinists are uncompromising in their fervor to tyrannize the academy and devalue life and inasmuch as StephenB is uncompromising in his conviction that the right to life in inviolable, Stephen B is a Darwinist. Is that about it? Let’s extend it a little bit. Inasmuch as Stalin was uncompromising about murdering his own countrymen to squelch dissent and inasmuch as Mother Teresa was uncompromising about serving the poor, Mother Teresa was a Stalinist. How am I doing?

I’m socially conservative with a pragmatic non-ideological streak on other stuff, but would like to see conservatives do more to defend their interests. McCain cannot since he’s not all that conservative. I was hoping Palin could step a little more into the briarpatch unscathed. More fool me:

Foreign policy is supposed to be one of our strong suits in poll after poll. Too bad we mucked it up the other night. In all probability Obama is going to use a slightly more advanced and well-honed version of what salesmen call “Glittering Generalities” to nail us to the wall. G.G. works for smoothers like Obama. As Kathleen Parker points out, it does NOT work for nice gals like Palin.

McCain too should have been wise to this setup for the kill the media is doing on Palin.

I wince listening to her. Bless her sweet heart, and she could do better on some other issues. She needs to lose the whole ALASKA is “like, so CLOSE TO RUSSIA” bit.

OK, gang. I like Palin as a person.

But folksy ain’t cuttin’ it anymore. It’s like listening to my relatives tell me yet again about huntin’, fishin’, and various ways of marinating hunks of meat.

It was cute having the kids on live TV licking palms and brushing back little Trig’s hairline. Anthropologists notice the same thing among cute troops of chimpanzees who groom and preen in like manner. It mels the heart.

BUT: The down home bit and gutting caribou is wearing thin. That mileage is gone, and the polls back up this observation.

Time to stop talking about ALASKA, and if forced to then find some way to plug Al Gore’s piehole by, say, quoting Richard Lindzen on why Alaska will not melt afterall in 50 years. And go from there.

Time for her to move on and do some late night cramming on US foreign policy since at least WWII to develop a flow and a consistancy that can’t be reverse-engineered from virtual TV Eva Brauns like Katie Couric.

The other night was an absolute unmitigated train wreck. (speaking of those, and Naomi “Evita” Wolf). Couric later reminded her audience, that pace Palin, Henry Kissinger, the stalwart conservative who NEGOTIATED with the SOVIETS ALSO said that contrary to Palin he DID approve more of the Obama angle on things. To wit, he too would, like Obama, negotiate with Little Adolf ahmadenijhad over in Iran. Hmmm. Well that went over well.

Dangerous ground for conservatives. If even Reagan and Iron Thatcher, both Bushes, and dozens of conservative pundits before and after advised that sometimes you have to sup with the Devil incarnate, then YES you MIGHT have to deal with Iran in like matter.
I’ve yet to see an answer about this apparent contradiction.

See how this backfired? Strike One.

Like Jar Jar Binks said to Obi Wan:

“Theysa settin’ ya up, Jedi”

And one way to avoid the “cringe” factor and the easy set up for laughable jibber jabber from women like Palin, who is CLEARLY not even prepared to do a knock down on airheads like Couric, is to replace Palin with someone else. Not that this would be a panacea.

For his part McCain has the ABILITY but not the will, it seems, to fire back for example at the Democrats now shirking their responsibility on the whole Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae meltdown? Bush III? He’s not even Bush .005.

McCain and Plain had every opportunity this morning to make some sense of Obama’s masterstroke of putting this whole “failure of consensus” on hammering out details of the new bailout squarley in McCain’s lap.

Saythe the Messiah “this is what happens when you ‘inject’ partisan politics into bipartisan efforts” etc., etc. Point: Obama. Strike two. McCain has yet to repsond with something other than a return volley. Palin is not heard from at all.

Obama is cooking us conservatives alike in our own indolence and sloth.

Strike three and we’re out. Time to get Palin back to the frozen north and let somebody else field the garbage from the media and place it back in their laps.

Nobody said it was about a single issue. I said abortion (or infanticide in Obama’s case) is, by far, the most important issue because it is a basic right.

—-“Maybe they care about the thousands of civilian lives lost in Iraq.”

A war can be just or unjust, but abortion is never a just act. In point of fact, I am not sure whether the Iraq war was just or not, but I do know that abortion is always unjust. Beyond recognizing the moral priority that should be given to abortion, we should also consider the quantitative difference between 1000 lives lost annually in Iraq and over 1,000,000 lives lost annually to abortion.

—–“I did hear somewhere that Obama drinks a cup of baby blood every morning for breakfast…”

Are you aware that he killed the Illinois Born-Alive protection Act? That is about as cold blooded as you can get.

—–“You’re wrong, and I bet if there was even a 50% chance your wife was going to die as a result of a pregnancy you wouldn’t think it was black and white.”

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there were 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in the U. S. That’s about 1 every 10,000. So, your scenario is very, very unlikely. On the other hand, I am sure that an abortion puts a woman at a much higher risk than childbirth. In any case, we shouldn’t have to wait for the crisis to cultivate our morality. Our values should already be in place.

—-“I’m strongly opposed to (abortion).

I am glad to know that. Perhaps you can express that opposition by refusing to vote for Barack Obama.

—–“Ironically for you, my position on abortion is more conservative than McCain who supports abortion in the case of rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life.

Ironically for you, a person’s true position on abortion is tested by the way he votes. Certain kinds of evils, known as “intrinsic evils,” can never be permitted in a society, and candidates who promote such evils need to be rejected by our vote, regardless of their position on other issues. The right to life is foundational to all other rights.
Now it is true that we must sometimes choose the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, McCain’s position is less than perfect. On the other hand, Obama’s position is totally contrary to the natural moral law. So, for me, the choice is easy. I must go with the candidate who will do the least harm.

I’d say in theory a war can be just, but dropping bombs on Iraq like Iraqi civilian lives are worth less than US lives is always unjust, and abortion can be a just act if the mother is going to die.

consider the quantitative difference between 1000 lives lost annually in Iraq and over 1,000,000 lives lost annually to abortion

Thats just the number of US deaths – there have been almost 100,000 documented civilian deaths in the course of the Iraq war, and probably a whole lot more – over a million according to some estimates.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there were 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in the U. S. That’s about 1 every 10,000. So, your scenario is very, very unlikely

Except thats the number of maternal deaths per live birth – not the number of abortions carried out because of danger to the woman’s health, which is more like 1 in every 100.

Are you aware that he killed the Illinois Born-Alive protection Act? That is about as cold blooded as you can get.

…and McCain has consistently voted against gun control laws. Both facts sadden me.

Ironically for you, a person’s true position on abortion is tested by the way he votes. Certain kinds of evils, known as “intrinsic evils,” can never be permitted in a society

The Catholic Church use the term “intrinsic evil” to describe contraception. I’d use it to describe the current international trade laws which keep the third world poor, amongst other things.

Perhaps you can express that opposition by refusing to vote for Barack Obama

I live in Northern Ireland, and thus I’m not going to be voting for anyone. I’m only in this argument because I’m tired of seeing US Christians demonizing Barack Obama and turning a blind eye to everything wrong with the current Republican administration.

—-“and McCain has consistently voted against gun control laws. Both facts sadden me.”

There is no moral equivalency between gun control laws and killing unborn children.

—–“The Catholic Church use the term “intrinsic evil” to describe contraception. I’d use it to describe the current international trade laws which keep the third world poor, amongst other things.”

The natural moral law is not solely Catholic, it is universal and abortion violates it. International trade laws can be either good or bad, and there is no way of knowing the intent of their authors. We can only know the effects of those laws after the fact. Abortion is different. We know that it is wrong before the fact. There is no moral equivalency between abortion and poverty. While both are evil, the former is fundamental and basic; the latter is derivative. One cannot be rich or poor, if one isn’t alive. Nor can one rise above one’s poverty and revolt against those who are responsible for it if one isn’t alive. In the final analysis, it is the “quality of life” argument that is always used to justify abortion or, for that matter, genocide.

—–“I live in Northern Ireland, and thus I’m not going to be voting for anyone. I’m only in this argument because I’m tired of seeing US Christians demonizing Barack Obama and turning a blind eye to everything wrong with the current Republican administration.”

The right to life transcends politics. Without the natural moral law to guide us, we have no way to know what is just or unjust. Without it we cannot create a hierarchy of values, nor can we discern which evils are greater than other evils. In such case, we have nothing else to guide us but our “feelings.”

“I’m tired of seeing US Christians demonizing Barack Obama and turning a blind eye to everything wrong with the current Republican administration.”

If you saw Obama’s record in fighting poverty in Chicago, you might change your attitude toward him. Chicago is the most corrupt city in the US and Obama was part of it for several years. He essentially accomplished nothing positive and most of the housing projects his mentors were involved with are now boarded up and unlivable, many in the district he represented. Almost nothing negative gets reported about Obama and believe me there is plenty while hundreds are sent to dredge up any detail they can find about Sarah Palin and then sand bag her in interviews. The media are becoming a joke as far as telling the truth here in the US as well as in Europe.

In Europe you live in a cocoon of information about the US and especially what the two political parties do. The information is available on the internet but hard to pin down unless you make an active search for it. Luckily, the US has alternative media sources that challenge the bias that appears in the main media every day. You can access them in Europe but only through the internet. That is why to Europe’s amazement we vote like we do. Most of us here have access to the information to make the correct decisions while Europe rarely gets exposed to it. They think we are some how mis guided while American rarely spend a thought on Europe except as a vacation destination.

But even here many will not know the truth about Obama because they would have to dig for it. I asked my children, all of who will probably vote for Obama if they ever heard of Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Alice Palmer, Allison Davis, Franklin Marshall Davis (no relation to Allison Davis) or the Annenberg Challenge and none of them had heard of any except one son said the name Tony Rezko was familiar but did not know why.

I asked them did they know who paid for his Harvard Law School education and who wrote letters of reference for him. None knew. I asked them how he won his first election and none knew. I asked them since he was president of the Law Review at Harvard and taught at an equally prestigious law school, the University of Chicago, what types of articles did he author. None knew. He never wrote anything in either capacity which is highly unusual. Since he wrote a book generally favorable of his father, how often did he see his father and what were his father’s politics. None knew.

Obama is a cipher to the average American and European unless they seek out the information. He is a media made event, an empty suit with no meaningful experience, has a charming smile and good appearance who has trouble making a speech unless there is a Teleprompter to read. If you look into his past, it is not a pretty one.

It would be much more appealing if you guys would stick to the scientific research rather than make political endorsements and limit the scope of Intelligent Design to Christian conservatives. We have enough issues to divide ourselves over, and it does no good to submerge Intelligent Design into the political ideals of others. I sincerely respect the work of Dr. William Dembski, but I am convinced that you, Dave Scot, are polluting the Theory of Intelligent Design by taking an aggressive stand against the liberal party (after all, what do issues such as global warming or liberal economics have to do with cosmological and biological origins?). I do not wish to seem disrespectful; I’m only expressing my views on these issues, and I would like say keep up the good work to everyone at Uncommon Descent.